Minutes:
1. Mrs Whittle gave an oral update on the following issues:-
Children’s Services Improvement Panel – this had been established following Ofsted’s report and Improvement Notice two years ago, with the purpose of addressing the issues covered by that Notice. The Panel’s work relates primarily to Kent’s children in care but must also have regard to children in care placed in Kent by other local authorities. Mrs Whittle will write to all KCC Members to reform the Panel following the recent elections.
Children Missing from Care – the County Council has responsibility for approximately 200 unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC), 1,800 Kent children in care and 1,200 children in care placed by other local authorities (although, for the latter, the County Council is not the corporate parent), and the issue of children who go missing from care is one which it takes very seriously. Much effort is put in to identify those who repeatedly go missing and the Council’s work in this field has input from care leavers, foster carers and the Dartington Hall trust.
2. Mr Ireland then gave an oral update on the following issues:-
Adoption inspection – a draft report and comments following the March inspection have now been received and publication of the final formal report is awaited. The Council’s response to the report will include a comment on the excessive time taken for the report to be received.
Changes to the Ofsted inspection framework – the Council had expected that future inspections of services would be undertaken separately, but a joint inspection of the Council’s Safeguarding and Children in Care services is now expected in September 2013.
Publication of a report by the Local Government Ombudsman – the Local Government Ombudsman had published findings against the County Council arising from a case two years ago of a young man not having been identified by the correct ‘looked after’ status, which then compromised his legal status upon reaching 18 and meant he missed out on housing services and support to which he would have been entitled. The Ombudsman’s recommendations have been accepted, including paying compensation to the young man. Subsequent training has addressed staff’s understanding of the issues raised by the case, and arrangements have been clarified and tightened.
Formal opening of the Ashford Multi-Agency Service Hub (MASH) which brings together NHS and Social Care teams. This is one of three such hubs in Kent, the others being in Sittingbourne and Margate.
3. Mrs Whittle, Mr Ireland and Ms MacNeil responded to comments and questions as follows:-
a) a Member commented that the Ombudsman’s report suggested that issues around the transition from children’s to adult services should be revisited. Another Member added that work done on transition issues since the case in question had made it much harder for the Ombudsman to find against the County Council now. Ms MacNeil added that practices and record keeping had changed and improved much since then, and intervention levels are now clearer. Some advice given to the young man in question had failed to warn him fully of the likely future impact of his situation;
b) in response to questions about teenagers in care being accompanied by adults when being advised and making decisions about their future options, Ms MacNeil explained that advice is given direct to young people in writing. Many young people prefer not to be accompanied by an adult, and an ‘appropriate adult’ is only involved when required by law, eg at a police interview with a young person aged under 16. For every young person to be accompanied by an adult would be very resource intensive. Mrs Whittle took up the point that having an adult present when a young person is making decisions about their future would be a good practice to adopt and undertook to take forward this idea; and
c) Members were advised that the cost of the compensation that the County Council had been directed to pay to the young man concerned was £3,000.
4. The oral updates were noted.